Exploring current and past conspiracies from a logical view point. Also bringing you legal and practical information about cryptography.If you're the victim of a conspiracy, you need crypto.

22 March 2012

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT?

It
seems like my monthly postings keeps coming later and later in the
month. I do apologise and next month I'll do my damnedest to have it
to you by the 5th. This time I really do have a valid
reason, though. Two, actually.

First,
there are so many things going on I was having a hard time deciding
which one deserves the time to research. I finally settled on this
month's topic, sat down to write it and that day my wife had a heart
attack. A trip to the ER and the fear of possibly losing my best
friend put everything else on hold. While we were dealing with all
that that entails, my computer crashed. I thought I had everything
backed up. That's what I get for thinking; I didn't double-check the
output of my back-up program. There is a lesson in there somewhere.

BTW;
my wife is ok now. Making a few life-style changes and slowin' down a
bit but back home and doing well.

So
now I have redone all of my research for this month's topic: The 2nd
amendment and some recent court cases and decisions about it.

Here
it is in all it's simplicity and glory.

Amendment II

A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This simple, one-sentence part of our constitution
has caused more controversy than almost any other legal statement in
the history of our great country.

Let's get a bit of historical context.

A
lot of people in this country think that we should have
European-style gun laws. They point, quite correctly, to a direct
correlation between the very restrictive European laws and most of
Europe's very low incidence of gun violence. What these good citizens
completely ignore is over 300 years of history and culture.

Most
European countries are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. In
their entire history the military were the only ones allowed to
posses any more armament than a dagger. Ordinary citizens were
simply forbidden from possessing weaponry. That is all they know.

On
the other hand, since the first explorers and settlers landed on
America's shores; a century or two before we became a sovereign
nation, EVERYBODY had a gun. They (guns) were an absolute necessity
for survival both from a view of self defence and for putting food on
the table. Even the Quakers and Pilgrims all had guns. Our entire
history has been written with the average person being armed.

In
that light, any attempt to disarm our population succeeds only in
either disarming the law-abiding citizenry or – if they refuse to
give up their ability to defend themselves and their families -
making criminals out of them. On the other hand the bad guys, by
their very nature, don't pay any attention to the laws in the first
place and they keep their guns. Or get more of them. I seriously
doubt that any law passed anywhere has ever made a criminal give up
his gun.

So
that brings us to this months' topic. What have the courts been
deciding recently in regards to the 2nd
amendment?

#1
Until 2008, probably the biggest point of disagreement about the 2nd
amendment were the first 4 words. Does the statement: “A
well regulated militia” refer
to the individual or to the national guard? That question has finally
been settled. At least for now.

On
6/26/'08 in District
of Columbia v. Heller1,
the
supreme court held in part : The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.

Arguably,
the most important part of this decision was 1b that reads:

“The
prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the
operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defence. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicised standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of
individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’
militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. “

That
reminds me of the old adage: “An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed
one a subject.” Obviously, that is what our wise [er than me]
founding fathers had in mind.

#2
On June 28th,
2010, the supreme court ruled on McDonald
v. Chicago2
,
expanding on DC v Hellerand
stating
that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms"
protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to individual states
as well as the Federal Government. In a nutshell, that means that
states have to follow the federal constitution as well as their own
and that federal trumps state.

In
explaining the Chicago decision, Justice Alito stated "It is
clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms
among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered
liberty."

#3
A Maryland law restricting carrying outside the home has been struck
down. U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg has declared the
requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show
that they have a "good and substantial reason" to do so
"impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms,"
as guaranteed by the Second Amendment3."
The judge went on to say: "The right's existence is all the
reason he needs."

#4
In Colorado, if you have a valid conceal carry permit, you can now
carry even on a University campus. Thanks to theStudents
for Concealed Carry on Campus you can now protect yourself, at least in Colorado, from campus
shooters4.

At
least 8 states have passed so-called “Firearms Freedom Acts”;
laws that state “
any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of
Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among
the states.5”
FFA
s are an attempt to eventually end federal control over all gun laws
within an individual state. South Carolina has actually done just
that. In 2010 a bill was introduced in their state legislature which
would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the
state6.
Several more states are considering similar laws. How these laws will
hold up to constitutional scrutiny is any body's guess

In
the news lately due to the shooting in Florida of an un-armed
teenager,are
the so-called Castle
Doctrines7
ofseveral
states.A Castle Doctrine is an American legal doctrine that designates a
person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such
as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain
protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an
intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. At least 22 states
have some form of Castle Doctrine, with a few going even further and
instituting a "Stand
Your Ground"
law8.
These laws state that you have no duty to flee from an aggressor and
that you are justified and indemnified from civil or criminal
prosecution for using deadly force, even if you're in a public place
and had a chance to leave and avoid the confrontation.

The
Federalist Papers consist of a series of essays written by Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison explaining how this new
government would operate and why this type of government was the best
choice for the United States of America.

In
the Federalist papers # 46, founding father James Madison put the
entire need-to-be-armed subject in context when he wrote: “Besides
the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition,
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of. Notwithstanding
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms”10.

Although
many people in the last hundred-or-so years have tried to say that
the need to maintain a militia of “all
males
physically
capable of bearing arms”
is no longer valid since we have the national guard and a constant
standing army, the courts keep upholding an individuals' right to own
guns. As one Supreme Court justice-whose name I can't remember- put
it (I
am quoting from memory so this is a paraphrase) “The
2nd
amendment is there in case the courts, military and law enforcement
forget about the other 9.”

Former
president Bill Clinton not withstanding, the right to keep and bear
arms has nothing to do with hunting ducks. It is a vital part of our
way of life; necessary to keep a free people free and to guarantee
that the Federal Government won't decide to throw out the
constitution and turn us all into subjects and serfs.

At
least that's my opinion. What's yours?

To
keep an eye on upcoming court cases involving the 2nd
amendment to our constitution, visit the Second Amendment
Foundation's web site at: